SPICKERMAN v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

SPICKERMAN v. State

1 So. 3d 337, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1935, 2009 WL 151173

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 23, 2009

Docket5D08-2075

StatusPublished

This text of 1 So. 3d 337 (SPICKERMAN v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

SPICKERMAN v. State, 1 So. 3d 337, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1935, 2009 WL 151173 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the lower court’s order regarding jail credit. The State properly concedes that Appellant is due one additional day not credited by the trial court. In addition, Appellant might be entitled to five days of credit for the period of time during which he was held in the Lake County jail from March 14, 2007, until March 19, 2007. We are unable to determine from the limited record whether Appellant is entitled to credit for these five days but the allegations of his motion were not conclusively negated in the trial court’s order.

On remand, the trial court shall award one additional day and determine whether Appellant is entitled to five additional days while he was held in Lake County. See Elkins v. State, 884 So.2d 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PALMER, C.J., TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the lower court’s order regarding jail credit. The State properly concedes that Appellant is due one additional day not credited by the trial court. In addition, Appellant might be entitled to five days of credit for the period of time during which he was held in the Lake County jail from March 14, 2007, until March 19, 2007. We are unable to determine from the limited record whether Appellant is entitled to credit for these five days but the allegations of his motion were not conclusively negated in the trial court’s order.

On remand, the trial court shall award one additional day and determine whether Appellant is entitled to five additional days while he was held in Lake County. See Elkins v. State, 884 So.2d 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PALMER, C.J., TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 So. 3d 337, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1935, 2009 WL 151173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spickerman-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack